I’m not talking about Charlton Heston’s chilling revelation that – Soylent green is people – it’s people! – at the end of the classic sci-fi flick of the same name. That movie was based on a novel called Make room! Make room! by Harry Harrison. In the novel, ‘soylent’ was a product derived from a cross between soy and lentils, not people!

I am referring to a new way of, shall we say, obtaining nutrition. Notice I didn’t say ‘eating’. In my constant endeavor to be sleuthy, I discovered Soylent – a powdered mixture that is combined with water to create a thick drink that is similar in consistency to pancake batter. It offers everything the human body needs for fuel – the macro nutrients – fat, carbs and protein, the micro nutrients – vitamins and minerals.

Invented by a Silicon Vally techie to eliminate the inconvenience of having to deal with shopping for food, preparing food and cleaning up after food, I was first drawn to his blog posts about the early days of his experimentation with recipes and ingredient lists and values. His starting point was standardized government RDIs and from there he began to build his recipe. Read the blog here.

I got in on the initial crowd funding for the fledgling company and waited several months to receive my first shipment of seven pouches of the drink. I waited as long as I could – nearly a year – until its month of expiration to actually use the Soylent. I guess I was a little afraid of it at first. Since my 23-year-old son has been on Soylent for several months, I gave him two pouches and saved the five remaining for myself.

I fell in love with the product immediately. Initially I felt hungry but when my body got used to it after the first few days, I felt content and happy and I didn’t miss food. A sense of well being came over me, almost bordering on euphoria at times. I lost all cravings for sweets, crunchy, salty foods, even for my beloved early evening glass or two (or three or four) of wine or beer. For someone who has battled with over-indulging all my life, that is a monumental feat. Never before have I spent the languid hours after dinner feeling truly satisfied – not wanting something.

Now I have joined the DIY Soylent movement and have made up my first few batches. I don’t quite have my own personal recipe finalized yet – am still tweaking this and that but I happily learn as I go. Procuring all the ingredients is not for the faint of heart as it is quite tedious. I will be posting more about this experience for sure. Here is a fantastic New Yorker article about the history of DIY Soylent and Soylent itself.

I have found that because I am married and my husband does not eat soylent (yet), it is in both of our best interest if I eat regular food on, say, the weekends and soylent during the week. I will of course partake in all social gatherings, holiday meals, birthdays, etc. Soylent is just something I know I can easily prepare and get all my obligatory nutrients when nothing special is going on.

I did have some blood work done after four days on Soylent and all my important numbers were down from four years ago – even my blood pressure and weight. I was pretty happy with that!

The implications for feeding the world with this food innovation are more than I am prepared to write about at the moment – but such a post is coming.

This is no cheap drugstore diet drink, no gimmicky supplement, this is real food – a quality product with full caloric values – and it will have an impact on the food industry. Of that I am sure.

Things are heating up in my home state of Oregon. This is the first of likely several more posts I will make regarding the upcoming election. I am specifically referring to ballot measure 92 which will appear on the November ballot, the campaign to label GM foods – only in Oregon, a state with a population of just under 4 million, within a country of 322 million. And it’s not going to make food costs go up?

The ads are starting to air and I suspect, will be convincing to folks on both sides of the issue. I don’t know how it will play out but I am already nauseous over the likely unprecedented amount of money that will be spent on this contentious measure, based on a similar recent battle in our neighbor state, Washington, which burned up north of 30 million on ads. What 30 million could do for, say, schools!

It’s no secret how I feel about GMOs. A quick perusal of my blog makes it clear. GMOs have their rightful place in the agricultural toolbox, in the pharmaceutical toolbox and in other industry toolboxes. Transgenics are one of many advancements in biotechnology. It’s just terribly unfortunate that this particular technology is vilified far, far beyond reason. Otherwise intelligent people are getting caught up in fear-based hyperbole, suiting up in their soldier gear and wielding guns that shoot bullets of poorly researched factoids. And it’s working.

It all sounds so pat and it explains absolutely everything, doesn’t it? So convenient.

GMOs are the perfect scapegoat to explain away modern disease, especially disease that is, allegedly, on the rise – autism, obesity, gluten insensitivity (from GM wheat that in truth is not GM because there is no GM wheat on the market), allergies, liver and immunity dysfunction, cancer, etc. The list is long.

Here is a quote from the Organic Consumers Association, a radical anti-GMO activist group to which I once contributed cash. I am ashamed of that now because these people are fear-mongers and I fell for it. They write:

Did you know… genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not safe. They have been linked to thousands of toxic and allergenic reactions, thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals.

This is just the beginning of the hysteria. Let me quell the above statement – lest it scare someone – with two articles that reference the same study proving convincingly that GMO food is SAFE for livestock. [1] Please check the following two links out.

My views are rooted in a personal journey that started in the position of anti-GMO activism but ended in what is widely referred to as the ‘pro-science’ camp. Notice I don’t say pro-GMO. Scholarly science (as opposed to psuedo-science) overwhelmingly supports the use of GMOs in situations when and where it is warranted.

Overwhelmingly.

Along my journey I looked under a few rocks and discovered just that. It was inconvenient for me to learn this. I wanted to be a flag-waver, to help change the world, to stand for something. The bastards were poisoning us and damn-it, I was going to do my part.

That GMOs are really pretty cool wasn’t at all apparent on my first ten clicks to websites run by the likes of Jeffrey Smith, the Health Ranger or GM Watch, not apparent when I watched the charismatic Vendana Shiva speak at organic farmer conventions. I had to dare myself to communicate with people who saw things another way, to listen to what they had to say, to correspond with scientists, to look at science reports, articles and blogs and to allow myself to learn what the technology really is, what it does and very importantly, what is doesn’t do. And by no means does anyone – not scientist, farmer nor Monsanto executive – see it as some kind of magic panacea. It is a tool, albeit a very advanced one.

The accounts of these experiences are all here on the blog. The truth is we and countless livestock have been eating genetically engineered crops since the 90s and there has not been one, not one health issue proven to be a result of eating them. Any studies or parts of studies that purport to show harm have been shown by scholars to be problematic in one or sometimes several ways. The information used against the technology is often cherry picked, taken out of context, not supported with actual data, blown out of proportion, or flat out made up.

Of course those against GMOs cry foul, that the whistle blowing do-gooders are being silenced, that the revolving door of corruption has taken over every regulatory agency in the world and they are not to be trusted, that everyone who speaks in favor of GMOs is paid by Monsanto…

This really sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. I actually googled “conspiracy theory” and found a long, sometimes comical list of them. Here are some of the more well-known of the bunch.

Liberals have taken over the media and schools and brainwashed everyone to believe in socialism and evolution

Monsanto Company is secretly maneuvering to control the world’s food supply using GMOs (genetically modified organisms)

Elvis is not dead!

Right to know? Do you really want to?

We have a right to know what’s in our food. On the surface, it seems reasonable. But GMOs are not an ingredient like sugar or flour or what-have-you. GMOs are not a macro or micro nutrient like protein, carbohydrates, calcium or Vitamin C. GMOs are the result of transgenic technology, a precise way to breed crops, a process. There are many ways to breed crops and many of them might raise an eyebrow or two. Ever heard of mutagenesis? Should we then list all breeding techniques on every package of food? Is that where this is going? If we didn’t mess with what ‘God’ created, what was natural – we would starve to death.

The public disdain for this has spun far out of control and unfairly placed scientists in the role of villains or worse, stooges for the industry with financial ties to Monsanto, the company that shoulders the brunt of public hatred for GMOs, even though they aren’t the only company that produces them.

The irrationality around this topic isn’t good for our country, for our global food supply, or for Oregon. Oregon has plenty of other problems.

I am a passionate environmentalist. Let me count the ways. Climate change is a true threat that should scare people. I hate plastic bags and one-time use plastic in general. I want to punch people who get a new damn plastic or paper bag every time they walk in a store. I get very short with cashiers who want to put my pack of Wrigleys in a freakin’ bag. Before they can shove it in there I scream – no bag! I get very upset when I see litter and cigarette butts floating into storm drains, or worse, on the hallowed ground of a national park or on an otherwise pristine beach. In my opinion, these are far more important issues. GMOs don’t scare me in the least. I eat them every day.

If this thing passes here, I fully expect hysteria and food prices to go up, maybe a lot, and that will really suck.

Note: I know I will get flack for writing this. People already hate me because I speak in favor of GMOs. They think Monsanto pays me. They think I just don’t understand. They try to point me in the direction of poorly conducted science experiments and activist websites. They attack my character, tell me I’m angry, insult my intelligence. I’ve heard it all. Come at me with the best you’ve got.

Evidence trumps belief.

Julee K/Sleuth4health

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Below are several links to posts I have made that outline how and why I changed my mind about GMOs.

[1] I already know that there are those who will discredit both authors of these posts, Jon Entine and Kevin Folta, because they have haters out there throwing the tiresome Monsanto shill accusation at them, even though in Folta’s case specifically, all monies paid to him or his lab are a matter of PUBLIC RECORD. But the science presented speaks for itself. They are merely passing it along. There is a temptation to believe every nasty activist rant against these two but the accusations are without merit.

Like this:

5/27 – Headline changed from An Amusing Look at Science to An Amusing Look at Food Science

This article has been thoroughly edited and updated since its original posting. After some serious reflection on the entire video I posted below, I shifted my opinion quite a bit – to the point of agreeing with the first half of it, but vehemently disagreeing with the second half. This is indeed very strange.

In my excitement about the part I do agree with, I just didn’t focus as much as I should have on the latter part and how it doesn’t represent my views at all. Instead of just deleting the whole post, I decided to write this disclaimer and leave the post.

My sincere apologies for my lack of attention to certain details the first time around. JK/S4H

I recently stumbled upon the video below, called Science For Smart People and found it to be funny – and highly controversial and downright offensive at times. Speaking to a very loose, (drunk?) and interactive audience on board a cruise ship, Tom Naughton, writer and director of the documentary Fathead, lends a plucky bent to what makes science, science. At first it all rings true as he focuses mostly on science as it applies to drugs, food woo and current nutrition fads, underscoring the distinction between observational and clinical studies and how preconceived beliefs inform understanding. So far, so good, right? Well, then it goes awry with a one-size-fits-all accusation that scientists are liars in the name of profits, namely, the scientists who work for Big Pharma and Big Food.

That’s when I began to wince – as it riques of something akin to Monsanto bashing and chemtrails… so again, I take it all with a grain of Himalayan salt. The first part of it is still worth watching though because it is funny and actually does do a good job of explaining the scientific method to non-scientifically minded folks.

I visited Naughton’s Fathead website and found a lot of criticism of the food pyramid, of current mainstream nutritional advice and of food regulatory agencies. It comes across as ‘conspiracy theory-ish’ to me but again, I still enjoyed the earlier part of the video and upon first glance, believe at least some of what he claims on his website to be worthy of a further look-see.

I did comment on his youtube channel that he paints all scientists with one brushstroke – public, private, all. It comes across as if he the comedian thinks he knows more about science than scientists do, which actually makes him look kind of ridiculous after sounding pretty good at first!

He parodies Morgan Spurlock‘s movie Super Size Me in his Fathead documentary and claims not only that the “obesity” epidemic is overstated but that fast food is unfairly blamed. Hmm. I don’t think I buy that but I’m willing to consider a few points he makes.

Shortly after my conversion from anti-GMO blogger to pro-science observer and rational thinker, I ran a series in Sleuth4Health called The Benevolent side of GMOs in which I highlighted spedific GMOs, science, and farming practices that I found to be beneficial to mankind. Some examples are the Arctic Apple, Simplot Potato, Hawaian Papaya, Golden Rice. [1]

Today my post focuses on some pretty nifty tomatoes. Add them to the list of benevolent GMOs, because this could and hopefully will be the future of nutrition.

Now, before I continue with this post, I know there are many readers who will immediately take the following stance:

What about natural tomatoes?

Isn’t what nature makes preferable?

Can’t we just leave tomatoes alone?

Why should they be genetically engineered at all?

My answer is this: when it comes to growing food, I am more and more convinced as I continue to learn that there is no such thing as natural. If we left everything natural we’d be desperate and starving, if we even lived this long. Man has tweaked the breeding of plants for as long as he’s been eating them – for economy, variety -for survival. We all benefit from the myriad of ways we can vary plant species, from hybridization to full on engineering in a lab. Tomatoes are no different.

According to wiki, the first tomatoes found on the planet were no where even close to the variety we have today. In the South American Andes for example, the first tomatoes were cherry sized and likely yellow. Further north in Central America, a larger, lumpier fruit mutated from a smoother, smaller fruit. Evidence points to this mutation as the likely ancestor of some modern cultivated tomatoes. Having such a myriad of different types of tomatoes to choose from nowadays is clearly a good thing, but folks, this ample choice didn’t just happen naturally. Thousands of years of plant breeding got tomatoes to where they are today.

Science Really Can Save Us

I once heard a scientist say that nature is trying to kill us and science will save us. When I first heard that expression and allowed it to waft through my brain, I was so disturbed by it, angry even, that I wanted to punch the person who had the audacity to say such a thing. Now, after all the reading I’ve done about GMOs, about evolution and related topics, I unequivocally believe that statement to be true. The only reason ‘nature’ seems to favor our human food needs is because we have made it so by watchful study, repetition, experimentation, careful maintenance of what works and then speculation about and innovation regarding what could likely work better.

So now back to tomatoes. At the John Innes Centre, a non-profit research organization in the UK, some pretty exciting stuff is happening with tomato research and development. Professor Cathie Martin and Dr. Eugenio Butelli were recently honored by the BBSRC (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Counsel) with the “most promising innovator award 2014” for their work developing high levels of beneficial compounds in four types of tomatoes.

Here is a brief description of the four varieties:

1. The “purple tomato” contains the same level of anthocyanins as half a basket of blueberries. The anthocyanins are what give blueberries their pigment and are credited with being high in anti-oxidants.

2. The large orange tomato weighs 100g and just one has the same amount of a beneficial compound as 27 bottles of pinot noir!

3. The yellow fruit variety contains genistein which is also present in soy products and equals what is present in a 150g block of tofu.

The John Innes Centre (JIC) website offers the following additional description of the tomatoes:

The bioactive compounds selected are known to offer protection against inflammation, cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Martin and Eugenio Butelli’s research is helping to uncover how the protective mechanisms work and which compounds are most effective. The tomato products could be used to complement medicines in the treatment and prevention of chronic diseases and obesity.

The purple tomatoes have been shown to have anti-inflammatory effects compared to regular ones and to slow the progression of soft-tissue carcinoma in cancer-prone mice. They also have double the shelf life.

Professor Martin adds:

The tomato varieties we have developed offer a new way to compare the protective effects that specific bioactive molecules can exert on the development of chronic diseases.

Crop Biotech Update says of the tomatoes:

The bioactive compounds present in the tomato varieties are known to offer protection against inflammation, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases. Thus, the research will help elucidate how the protective mechanisms function and which compounds are most helpful for the body.

Paul Carver of New Energy Farms in Ontario, Canada, where the tomatoes are being grown under glass, says:

The most amazing thing is the potential to supply an expensive compound from nature more economically to large markets for food, livestock feed, cosmetics, food colourings and even pharmaceuticals.

Imagine the Possibilities!

Now, I find this all not only fascinating, but very promising for nutrition and health needs in the future. This could be just the beginning of any number of ways plants can be engineered for not only superior nutritive value but perhaps more importantly, a role in disease prevention.

Business Model Can Show Direct Benefit to the Consumer

The uniqueness and promise of these tomatoes also present an innovative business model which can be used to navigate the regulatory hurdles associated with genetic modification. That is good news for all of biotechnology because at this point, the nay-sayers, activists, well-meaning politicians, lobbyists, and other groups who, perhaps unknowingly, use both hack science to invent safety issues and fear to influence hoards of unsuspecting consumers – all of these and more are what holds this technology back.

The technology itself? It needs room and opportunity to grow and develop. Like any other research. Any other technology. Instead, it has been most unfairly vilified and I find that very sad and counterproductive.

[1] I unintentionally excluded a post about Golden Rice from the original series but covered it later on my blog. See article here. Golden Rice in fact deserves top honors in the benevolence department.

I just happened upon this youtube video this morning. It was one of those all too rare serendipitous moments that, when they happen, assure me all is right with the world. I knew immediately I had to post it and give this guy some props.

We have in this piece Mr. Jeff Holiday, the quintessential dread locked Eugene resident, the stereotype personified of the 60s Oregon flower child that persists today. If you aren’t familiar with what I’m talking about, Eugene is the home of the University of Oregon, land of the Ducks, and it has always had a certain reputation. I attended this university, lived in Eugene for over two years and can attest to the pervasive western hippie vibe – the crystals, the hemp, the waft of patchouli, the New Age spiritualism, the Birkenstocks. I lived it. It was that way before I ever got there in the early 80s and it remains that way today.

So anyway, here is this guy who upon first sight evokes the uber-liberal-bleeding-heart-occupy-Eugene-Monsatan-corporations-are-evil activist. Right?

WRONG!

Holiday exposes the anti-GMO propaganda machine in a way I’ve not seen before. Among other unique points of view, he brilliantly points out how this activist movement is doing the very thing it accuses Big Food and Ag of doing – seeking to deny choice.

Awhile back I did a two-part video interview series regarding my views on GMOs with Greenstate TV. You can view parts one and two (in reverse order) here and here.

Today I am posting Greenstate TV interviews with two other people whom I admire greatly. Specifically these two were absolutely instrumental in my realization that GMOs can actually benefit our planet. Fourat Janabi did an excellent 3-part interview with Greenstate TV just before I completed mine. Kevin Folta is the most recent hot-off-the-press interviewee, in two parts so far, with, I am assuming based on his vast knowledge, more likely to come.

Part two of Folta’s interview appears first below. He is one of the esteemed scientist involved with Biology Fortified, mentioned in my last post, but also mentions the very topics I touched on in said post titled GMOs Can Be Fun!

Dr. Kevin Folta, is one of the most outspoken voices of science one will encounter in any type of media. What I really admire about this guy is that he just won’t let people go on being wrong. He does everything he can to present the facts. Folta is a true teacher. I am a teacher myself so I don’t make that claim lightly!

These three graphics came from a blog by James Kennedy, a British chemistry teacher living in Australia. Here is his explanation for creating the posters:

As a Chemistry teacher, I want to erode the fear that many people have of “chemicals”, and demonstrate that nature evolves compounds, mechanisms and structures far more complicated and unpredictable than anything we can produce in the lab.

Right on Mr. Kennedy! Thank you for doing that.

I saw the posters, loved them, and emailed him to ask if I could put them on Sleuth4Health. I only wish I had a chemistry teacher like that during my schooling days. Please do visit his eclectic blog.